ZAFAR IQBAL vs MUHAMMAD ILYAS and anothers
This matter concerns a petition for the cancellation of bail granted by the Lahore High Court to the respondent, Muhammad Ilyas, who was accused in an F.I.R. registered under Sections 302, 380, 452, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that the respondent, along with co-accused, entered the complainant's premises armed with rifles, where the respondent fired at the deceased and inflicted a butt blow causing a fracture. The petitioner argued that the respondent was specifically named in the F.I.R. with a distinct role and possessed a criminal record. The Supreme Court examined the ocular account provided by four injured witnesses, which was corroborated by medical evidence. Finding that the allegations against the respondent were supported by prima facie evidence and fell within the mischief of Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, the Court held that the High Court's order granting bail could not be sustained. Consequently, the petition was converted into an appeal, allowed, and the bail order was set aside.
- Does the presence of specific allegations in an F.I.R. and supporting medical evidence warrant the cancellation of bail?
- Can bail be cancelled when the accused is specifically named with a definite role in a case involving Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Is the testimony of injured witnesses sufficient to establish a prima facie case for the purpose of bail cancellation?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 380, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 452, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' TASSADDUQ HUSSAIN JILLANI, J.--- The petitioner/ complainant (in case F.I.R. No,336 of 2004, dated 19-11-2004 registered under sections 302/380/452/148/149, P.P.C. At Police Station Makhdoom Rasheed District Multan) seeks cancellation of bail granted to Muhammad Ilyas respondent by the High Court vide order dated 9-2-2005.
2. The prosecution story briefly stated is that on the fateful day and time when the complainant was visiting his cousin Muhammad Akram deceased, respondent armed with rifle, Manzoor co- accused armed with rifle along with eight others entered the premises. Manzoor raised Lalkara that Akram be taught a lesson which was followed by tire from him which hit Muhammad Akram on his eye and nose and he fell down whereupon respondent Ilyas fired at him which hit him on the right - cheek. It was further alleged that respondent gave a butt blow to Muhammad Akram in consequence of which his left arm was fractured. During the occurrence four other persons from the complainant side also received injuries.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks cancellation of bail on the ground that the respondent was specifically named in the F.I.R. With a definite role attributed to him of having armed with deadly weapon and of having caused injuries on the person of the deceased and there was no tenable ground to grant him bail. Further contended that the respondent also has previous criminal record.
4. The learned counsel for the State supported the petition as according to him there was sufficient evidence implicating the respondent; that the ocular account consisting of four injured witnesses was corroborated by the medical evidence inasmuch as injuries Nos.3 and 4 on the person of the deceased are attributed to the respondent.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the State and have also perused the record.
6. Muhammad Ilyas has not appeared despite service. He is specifically named in the F.I.R. To have come to the spot armed with a rifle and to have fired at the deceased. It is further alleged that he caused a butt blow on the person of the deceased in consequence of which his left arm was fractured. Prima facie police had no tenable ground to disbelieve the injured witnesses. In view of the allegations levelled, the case of the respondent squarely falls within the mischief of section 302, P.P.C. That being so, the impugned order granting bail to the respondent Muhammad Ilyas cannot be sustained. Resultantly this petition is converted into appeal and allowed. The order dated 26-7- 2005 passed by a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court in Criminal Miscellaneous No,988/B of 2005 is set aside.
Cited by 1 case
- The State vs Syed Amir Muhammad 2021 MLD 1381